R v East

Case [2008] QCA 144

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v East [2008] QCA 144

PARTIES:

R
v
EAST, Neil Frank
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 168 of 2007
DC No 319 of 2007

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Maroochydore

DELIVERED ON:

6 June 2008

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

8 April 2008

JUDGES:

Keane JA, Fryberg and Lyons JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

Appeal allowed1.   

Convictions on both counts of the indictment set aside2.   

There should be a new trial of both counts3.   

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – OTHER MATTERS – where the trial judge granted counsel for the appellant leave to withdraw on the day before the date on which the trial was due to commence – where the application was granted without hearing submissions from the appellant – whether the trial judge erred in granting leave to withdraw without first hearing from the appellant

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES INVOLVING MISCARRIAGE – OTHER IRREGULARITIES – where counsel for the appellant was granted leave to withdraw on the day before the date on which the trial was due to commence – where the appellant applied for an adjournment to allow time to seek new representation – where the application for an adjournment was refused – whether the refusal of the adjournment by the trial judge resulted in a miscarriage of justice
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES INVOLVING MISCARRIAGE – OTHER IRREGULARITIES – where during the course of the trial the appellant was removed from the courtroom during the testimony of various witnesses due to the appellant's disruptive behaviour – where upon return of the appellant to the courtroom the trial judge refused the appellant's request to call for
cross-examination those witnesses whose evidence-in-chief was given in his absence – whether the refusal by the trial judge of the appellant's request to cross-examine certain witnesses resulted in a miscarriage of justice

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – GENERALLY – where there were procedural irregularities in the conduct of the trial – whether these irregularities resulted in a substantial miscarriage of justice – whether there should be an application of the proviso set out under s 668E(1A) of the Criminal Code

Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld), s 590AE, s 592, s 616, s 617, s 668E(1A)

AK v The State of Western Australia [2008] HCA 8, cited
Conway v The Queen (2002) 209 CLR 203; [2002] HCA 2, applied
Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292; [1992]…

Continue reading R v East

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v East [2008] QCA 144
Case
[2008] QCA 144
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, represented by counsel, was convicted on two counts of a serious criminal indictment and now appeals against the conviction. The primary issue before the court was whether there were sufficient grounds to set aside the convictions and order a new trial. The appeal raised several points of contention, including the trial judge's decision to grant leave for the appellant's counsel to withdraw on the day before the trial was scheduled to commence without first hearing from the appellant. Additionally, the court considered whether the refusal of an adjournment to allow the appellant time to obtain new representation, and the subsequent removal of the appellant from the courtroom during witness testimony, amounted to a miscarriage of justice. The court also examined whether the trial judge's refusal to allow the appellant to cross-examine witnesses whose testimony was given in his absence constituted a miscarriage of justice.

The court found that the trial judge erred by granting leave for counsel to withdraw without hearing from the appellant, and this error was compounded by the refusal of an adjournment to allow the appellant to obtain new representation. The court held that these procedural irregularities were significant and contributed to a substantial miscarriage of justice. Furthermore, the court found that the appellant's removal from the courtroom during witness testimony and the subsequent refusal to allow cross-examination of those witnesses constituted additional errors that contributed to the miscarriage of justice. The court concluded that these cumulative procedural errors warranted the setting aside of the convictions and the ordering of a new trial.

The appeal was allowed, and the convictions on both counts of the indictment were set aside. The court ordered a new trial on both counts, finding that the procedural irregularities during the trial had resulted in a substantial miscarriage of justice. The court's decision underscored the importance of procedural fairness in criminal trials and the potential consequences when such fairness is compromised.

The court's final orders were to allow the appeal, set aside the convictions on both counts of the indictment, and order a new trial on both counts. This decision ensures that the appellant will have the opportunity to be fairly represented and to properly challenge the evidence presented against him in a new trial.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed1.

Convictions on both counts of the indictment set aside2.

There should be a new trial of both counts3.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.